Evaluation of Quality and Availability of Arabic Web-Based Information on Dry Socket

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the quality and availability of Arabic-language internet-based information on alveolar osteitis or dry socket.

Materials and Methods

The present cross-sectional study included the first 50 websites that appeared through Bing, Google, and Yahoo search engines for the terms alveolar osteitis or dry socket or alveolitis to evaluate the content, quality, and readability of the available Arabic information. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria for website analysis, the Health on the Net (HON), and the DISCERN instrument were used to evaluate the quality of the online material. Three metrics were used to evaluate the readability: Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Flesch Reading Ease (FRES) scores.

Results

Based on affiliation, dental/medical centers have the highest representation, followed by nonprofit organizations. Visuals like images are moderately used. The reliability DISCREN domain scores indicated generally poor balance in the materials, though relevance is a notable strength. Overall rating (Q16) revealed that the materials are rated as moderately useful overall with relatively low variability (mean: 2.93; standard deviation [SD]: 0.776). Governmental/university websites excel in meeting the JAMA benchmarks. Dental/medical centers and nonprofit organizations showed better overall JAMA performance than commercial websites. According to the FRES scale, the majority of websites are written in a simple, accessible manner, suitable for general users. Most websites offer moderate-quality information (mean = 38.19; SD = 9.035 [range: 22–56]).

Conclusion

Most websites had medium-quality data on dry socket without achieving high reliability or usability or treatment risk by the majority of websites with nonprofits websites leading in this regard, followed by dental/medical centers.

Keywords

dry socket - alveolitis - postextraction - complications - osteitis

Introduction

Dry socket, also known as alveolar osteitis, is one of the most common complications in tooth exodontia, one of the most common procedures in surgical dentistry.[1] [2] After a tooth extraction, a normal socket will form a blood clot while healing. In contrast, a dry socket occurs when the blood clot partially or completely detaches, exposing nerves and bone in the socket.[2] This type of complication is typically related with the extraction of impacted third molars and mandibular molars more than maxillary molars. The incidence of dry socket is 10% higher when extraction is performed surgically rather than normally,[3] with prevalence ranging between 1 and 4.8%.[4] Symptoms of dry socket include throbbing pain that worsens between the first and third days following extraction, obvious exposed bone or tissue, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, and bad breath.[5]

Bacterial biofilm and food particles in a socket can also prevent the reformation of a dislodged blood clot, and contact between the healing epithelium and the exposed bone could be obstructed by food particles and bacterial biofilm, leading to extended healing duration of the dry socket. In addition, toxins that produced by fermentation inside a dry socket irritate the exposed bone, produce a foul taste or halitosis, and induce jaw pain. Several factors have been linked in the literature to an increased incidence of dry socket such as traumatic extraction, poor oral hygiene, preoperative or postoperative infection, smoking, gender, nutritional deficiency, extraction site, usage of oral contraceptives, use of local anesthetic with vasoconstrictor, insufficient postoperative irrigation, irradiation, coagulation problems, and inability to follow the postextraction instructions and inexperienced aggressive operators. Furthermore, dry sockets are more common in older individuals and those with systemic diseases like diabetes and immunosuppression.[6] Dry socket management involves relieving pain and protecting the affected area until it heals spontaneously.[7] [8] Alvogyl dressing, containing eugenol (anti-inflammatory and analgesic), and iodoform (antimicrobial) are often used for the management of dry socket.[9] Another potential clinical approach for managing pain in alveolar osteitis is the use of platelet-rich fibrin.[10]

In the modern digital era, patients are more likely than ever to seek out online health information to learn more about their dental problems and conditions. The availability of web-based information in multiple languages has greatly aided the widespread accessibility of knowledge, allowing people to educate themselves on a variety of topics from the comfort of their own homes. However, it is critical to guarantee that the information available online is trustworthy, reliable, and appropriate for various linguistic and cultural situations.[11] It is also critical to examine any biases in online health information. These biases can lead to misleading information and negatively affecting patient decisions.[12] It has been noted that the spread of false information on the internet is a serious global issue that could affect people's quality of life.[13] [14] Owing to the health information growth on the internet, accessible health information is crucial for Arabic-speaking communities. Studies have highlighted the necessity of creating more thorough, easily available, and superior Arabic-language health information resources in order to meet the rising demand for online health literacy in Arabic-speaking nations. Therefore, this study evaluates the quality and availability of Arabic internet-based information about dry socket.

Materials and Methods

Searching Strategy

The methods used in this study were based on the methodology that Othman et al outlined in their investigation of Arabic online patient-centered information about dental extraction study.[12] Using Google Chrome, version 81.0.4044, the top 50 websites that appeared in the Bing, Google, and Yahoo search engines were analyzed to determine the quality, readability, and content of the material presented. Based on their affiliation, the websites were categorized into four groups: government/university, dental/medical, nonprofit, and commercial. We looked up the definition of alveolar osteitis in Arabic. Website content that was not in Arabic; content that was only offered as advice or in video or audio formats, full textbooks, or scientific papers; websites with sponsored links, banner ads, or discussion forums; websites that were not directly accessible and required a password to access; and social media platforms and forums were among the exclusion criteria for websites.

Quality Assessment

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria for website analysis,[15] the Health on the Net (HON),[16] and the DISCERN instrument[17] were used to evaluate the quality of the online content. The University of Oxford created the validated 16-point DISCERN questionnaire to assess the specifics of treatment choices (questions 9–15) and dependability (questions 1–8). There is also a question for the overall quality assessment (question 16).

Readability Assessment

Three metrics were used to evaluate the readability: the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Flesch Reading Ease Scores (FRES). The texts were categorized into easy, standard, or very easy. By taking into account the average sentence length and the average number of syllables per word, the FRES formula calculates how readable a text is. The easier the text is to read, the higher is the score. A 10-year-old's reading age is represented by a score of greater than 90, and an adult's reading age is represented by a score between 30 and 49.[13] If the number is seven or fewer, the text was deemed readable for FKGL and SMOG. In terms of FRES, a score of ≥80 is considered satisfactory. Before proceeding with the main findings, we conducted a pilot test to determine interrater reliability (IRR). Also, to maintain consistency, raters' results were compared periodically during the study. In addition, to avoid bias, two raters operate separately and are not aware of each other's scores.

Results

In total, 300 search results were identified. One hundred and thirty-five duplicate entries were eliminated following a comprehensive screening process. Twenty-seven results were classified as social media posts, which did not fit the inclusion criteria, and 53 results were unrelated to the study's goals. Thirteen advertisements, seven items with only video content, and eight sources required indirect access and were unfeasible for analysis were among the other exclusions. Fifty-seven valid items were kept for analysis ([Fig. 1]).

Fig. 1 Search strategy flow diagram.

[Table 1] demonstrated how the websites included in this analysis were classified based on affiliations. Nonprofit organizations accounted for 22 entries (38.6%), 9 items (15.8%) were associated with commercial entities, and the majority of them (24, 42.1%) came from dentistry or medical centers. Only two (3.5%) referred to government or university affiliation. All 57 sites (100%) included medical facts. A large number (24, 42.1%) of the sites used a question-and-answer format.

Table 1 Included websites categorization according to affiliation

Category	Value	Frequency	Percent
Affiliation	Commercial	9	15.8
	Dental/medical center	24	42.1
	Governmental/university	2	3.5
	Nonprofit organization	22	38.6
Specialization	Partly related	57	100.0
	Exclusively related	0	0
Content type	Medical facts	57	100.0
	Question and answer	24	42.1
Content presentation	Image	13	22.8
	Video	1	1.8
	Audio	0	0

Note: Specialization, content type, and presentation (n = 57).

[Table 2] showed the mean results for the DISCREN tool. Reliability questions from 1 to 8 revealed that aims were moderately stated. Sources demonstrated significant variability, suggesting inconsistent citation of references. Dates of publication were moderately to clearly stated. Treatment option questions 9 to 15 revealed that information about treatment was moderately well covered. Risks of treatment were almost entirely absent. Effects of not receiving treatment were rarely mentioned. Alternatives to treatment were moderately discussed. Overall rating (Q16) revealed that the materials were rated as moderately useful overall (mean: 2.93; standard deviation [SD]: 0.776).

Table 2 Mean and standard deviation (SD) of DISCERN question of the evaluated websites with maximum and minimum scores (n = 57)

Domain	DISCERN question	Mean	SD	Maximum	Minimum
Reliability	Q1. Explicit aims	2.30	1.625	5	1
	Q2. Aims achieved	2.65	1.876	5	1
	Q3. Relevance	4.37	0.957	5	2
	Q4. Explicit sources	1.98	1.506	5	1
	Q5. Explicit date	3.65	1.808	5	1
	Q6. Balanced and unbiased	1.82	1.255	5	1
	Q7. Additional sources	1.91	0.987	4	1
	Q8. Areas of uncertainty	2.26	1.828	5	1
Treatment options	Q9. How treatment works	3.54	1.415	5	1
	Q10. Benefits of treatment	1.72	0.996	5	1
	Q11. Risk of treatment	1.05	0.294	3	1
	Q12. Effects of no treatment	1.19	0.693	4	1
	Q13. Effects on quality of life	1.81	0.953	5	1
	Q14. All alternatives described	3.19	1.505	5	1
	Q15. Shared decision	1.81	0.833	4	1
Overall rating	Q16. Overall rating	2.93	0.776	4	1

[Fig. 2] outlined the number of achieved JAMA items across websites. No commercial websites achieved more than four JAMA items. Dental/medical centers achieved better performance than commercial websites, with four websites (7.02%) achieving more than four JAMA items. Governmental/university websites showed the highest performers among all affiliations, with seven websites (12.28%) achieving more than four JAMA items, reflecting a strong adherence to quality standards. One nonprofit organization website (1.75%) achieved more than four JAMA items, highlighting inconsistency in meeting the JAMA standards.

Fig. 2 The number of achieved Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) items according to the affiliation of the included websites (n = 57).

[Table 3] demonstrated the quality and readability of websites based on their affiliation, as assessed by the JAMA benchmarks and DISCERN tool. Authorship was achieved by a majority of nonprofit websites (12; 21.05%) and dental/medical centers (7; 12.28%). Attribution was mostly achieved by nonprofit organizations (9; 15.79%) and dental/medical centers (7; 12.28%). Currency was the most frequently achieved JAMA item, dominated by nonprofit organizations (21; 36.84%) and dental/medical centers (15; 26.32%), with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.012).

Table 3 Website quality and readability based on their affiliation (frequency and percentage), n = 57

Variable	Variable type	Commercial	Dental/medical center	Governmental/university	Nonprofit organization	Total	p-value
No. of achieved JAMA items per website	None	4	7	0	1	12	0.109
	One	1	8	2	7	18
	Two	1	4	0	6	11
	Three	3	3	0	8	14
	Four	0	2	0	0	2
JAMA items	Authorship	5	7	1	12	25	0.301
	Attribution	0	7	0	9	16	0.107
	Disclosure	3	4	0	1	8	0.180
	Currency	4	15	1	21	41	0.012
DISCERN	Low	3	10	1	5	19	0.549
	Medium	6	14	1	17	38
	High	0	0	0	0	0

DISCERN quality assessment revealed low quality in dental/medical centers and commercial websites. The majority of websites fall into the medium-quality category, with nonprofit organizations leading in this area (17), followed by dental/medical centers (14). No websites across any affiliation achieved high quality based on DISCERN scores.

[Fig. 3] evaluated the readability of websites using the FRES scale, categorizing them into easy, standard, or very easy, which showed a statistically significant difference. Nonprofit organizations (22 websites) and dental/medical centers (22 websites) had the highest proportion in the very easy category. Commercial websites (9 websites) also fall into this group. Only one governmental/university website achieved the very easy category. Only two websites from dental/medical centers fall into the easy category. Only one governmental/university website falls into the standard category.

Fig. 3 The distribution of the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) scale difficulty levels according to website affiliation (n = 57).

[Table 4] provides the DISCERN tool evaluation of the reliability and treatment quality of information. Reliability varied significantly among websites, with some offering highly reliable information (score: 32), while others performing poorly (score: 11). There was a wide range among websites in detailing treatment options (mean = 17.25; SD = 5.442; range: 8–28).

Table 4 The mean and standard deviation (SD) of DISCERN categories and readability tests (n = 57)

Variable	Variables type	Mean	SD	Maximum	Minimum
DISCERN	Reliability	20.95	5.198	32	11
	Treatment quality	17.25	5.442	28	8
	Total score	38.19	9.035	56	22
Readability	FRE	103.66	7.815	114	65
	FKGL	3.667	2.9884	18.9	1
	SMOG	3.902	0.2937	4.4	1.8
	Words	822.35	659.000	3491	16
	Sentences	46.19	41.219	230	8

Abbreviations: FKGL, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level; FRE, Flesch Reading Ease; SMOG, Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook.

Readability Tools

FKGL and SMOG demonstrated that websites on average were written near four reading levels, making them easily readable and understandable for most users. Word count varied in length, from very concise pages (16 words) to more lengthy content (3,491 words). FRES revealed high achievements (mean = 103.66; SD = 7.815; range: 65–114) indicating very simple readability, suitable for the general population.

Discussion

Every dental clinic still deals with dry socket complication, which is an unpleasant side effect after tooth extraction, and there is no consensus evidence about the best ways for prevention or treatment.[18] [19] [20] According to Raj and Prabu,[21] its incidence varies from 0.5 to 5% for ordinary extractions to 25 to 40% for more complicated cases.[18] Risk factors are multifactorial and include smoking, using oral contraceptives, the stage of the menstrual cycle, the difficulty of the surgery, poor oral hygiene, neglecting postextraction instructions, and the duration of the procedure.[5] [22]

Although there are many different management techniques, common methods include placing obtundent dressings, giving antibiotics, using low-level laser therapy, irrigation of the socket with saline or chlorohexidine, and using platelet-rich fibrin.[10] [23] The quality of the web health information was repeatedly found to be poor across a variety of dental subjects in many recent studies, such as early childhood caries, denture hygiene, implants, and caries.[11] [24] [25] Arabic is the holy language of Quran and Islam and is an official language in 25 countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Tunisia, Sudan, Bahrain, Comoros, Algeria, Eritrea, Chad, Iraq, Djibouti, Kuwait, Libya, Jordan, Mauritania, Oman, Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, Syria, Tanzania, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Yemen. It is one of the most commonly spoken languages in the world[26] and recognized as a national minority language in another six states: Iran, Turkey, Cyprus, Senegal, Niger, and Mali.[27] In addition, Arabic is a macrolanguage with more than 30 different varieties and Arabic migrants' speakers scattered across the globe and so they are estimated between 372 and 420 million native speakers of Arabic. Researchers on Arabic websites highlighted a critical need for improvement in the quality of oral and dental health online information to support informed decision-making among Arabic-speaking patients, emphasizing the importance of creating more reliable and comprehensive resources; however, standardization are complicated by Arabic linguistic variability.[23]

Nowadays the online information about dry socket is very important for patients, especially patients without prior extraction experience who are worried about postextraction pain and complications. Standardized translation of the DISCERN instrument to different languages is very important for researchers.[28] In the present study, the DISCERN scores revealed that most websites are of medium quality, but none reach high-quality scores, highlighting a significant gap in meeting higher standards of information quality and reflecting the need for substantial improvements in reliability, balance, and comprehensiveness across all affiliations. No websites achieving high DISCERN quality standards emphasized shortcoming treatment information, with treatment domain options focused on explaining treatment mechanisms and discussion of alternatives, but there is an absence of information on risks, effects of no treatment, and shared decision-making indicating widespread inadequacies in providing balanced and evidence-based information. Nonprofit organizations and dental/medical centers generally perform better in quality metrics (JAMA items and DISCERN) compared to commercial websites and governmental/university websites. Focused efforts are needed to improve transparency, attribution, and content balance, particularly among commercial sites.

The majority of nonprofit organization and dental/medical center websites are highly readable according to the FRES and written in a simple, accessible manner, indicating a tendency for these websites to be very simple aimed at maximizing accessibility and prioritizing simplicity over depth. However, oversimplification risks diluting the depth and accuracy of medical information, especially in treatment-related content. Governmental/university websites occasionally aim for a more advanced audience, but the representation remains negligible compared to other affiliations. Governmental/university affiliations should be improved for more balance, offering content at both accessible and advanced levels to reach diverse audiences. These results are consistent with prior research that indicated that most websites scored highly on a variety of reading indexes, despite the low quality.[25] [29] These results emphasize the necessity of enhancing the quality of online oral health content in Arabic while preserving readability.[24]

Contrary to readability, university websites perform better when it comes to achieving JAMA requirements, perhaps as a result of superior resources, knowledge, and adherence to academic and evidence-based norms, while commercial websites are the worst and show little commitment to meeting the JAMA criteria. Nonprofit organizations and dental/medical centers perform moderately. Dental/medical centers and nonprofit organizations showed better overall JAMA performance than commercial websites. However, very few websites achieve high-quality standards. Currency (up-to-date information) is the most commonly met JAMA item, particularly among nonprofit organizations and dental/medical centers, while authorship is also moderately well covered. Disclosure remains the least addressed item across all affiliations. This problem of Arabic-language websites having low-quality material on numerous oral health topics, that is, the majority of websites not meeting established quality standards of DISCERN tool requirements and JAMA benchmarks, is confirmed by others.[13] [25] [30]

The current results highlight the necessity of more standardization and quality improvement initiatives across noncommercial Arabic websites. Governmental and academic institutions tend to produce more accurate content, but their representation remains minimal, leaving the majority of content to less regulated commercial or nonprofit entities. Efforts to bridge these gaps could include partnerships between governments, universities, and nonprofit organizations to establish high-quality Arabic health information portals.

The wide variance in content quality and length highlights disparities in the resources and expertise available to Arabic website developers. Health information delivery in the Arab world should address specific cultural sensitivities, such as preferences for certain treatments, linguistic diversity of the Arabic language, role of family in medical decisions, and religious considerations in health care.

Even the majority of professional websites from Arabic universities typically use English, which is more citation friendly than Arabic. This might be because there are very few Arabic publications and citations to dry socket, and most studies and articles are written in English journals.[13] Additionally, detailed Arabic content still has to be developed.[31]

Therefore, it is advised that we produce more professional Arabic content for all other medical conditions. An online Arabic health encyclopedia was started in order to address the lack of reliable health information in Arabic-speaking countries. This project aimed to provide Arabic-speaking nations with reliable health care data. Such initiatives could enhance patient education and health care delivery for conditions like dry socket by addressing these issues and provide health information that is accurate, balanced, and culturally appropriate in addition to being easily available.[25]

In conclusion, Arabic websites should use evidence-based international benchmarks, such as JAMA and DISCERN criteria to improve reliability. Clear authorship, sources, and information currency are critical for establishing confidence in Arabic health information platforms. In addition, therapeutic information and treatment advices should not be oversimplified. Therefore, websites should concentrate on content that clearly cites sources, and provides in-depth details on risks and patient-centered decision-making. Academic institutions should play a more active role in curating and disseminating high-quality health information in Arabic. Public education efforts in the Arab world can assist people better interpret internet health information, allowing them to make more educated decisions.

The present study limitations include the emphasis on Arabic-speaking websites and health care practices that do not necessarily apply to larger or non-Arabic-speaking communities. Additionally, the results of the study may not match the quality of future content because web-based information is always developing.

Conclusion

Most websites had medium-quality data on dry socket without achieving high reliability or usability or detailed treatment risk by the majority of websites, with nonprofit organization websites leading in this area, followed by dental/medical centers.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval is not required for this study.

Recommendations

Therapeutic information and treatment advices should not be oversimplified. Therefore, websites should concentrate on content that clearly cites sources and provides in-depth details on risks and patient-centered decision-making allowing them to make more educated decisions. Public education efforts in the Arab world can assist people better interpret internet health information.

• References

• 1 Kuśnierek W, Brzezińska K, Nijakowski K, Surdacka A. Smoking as a risk factor for dry socket: a systematic review. Dent J 2022; 10 (07) 10
• 2 Mamoun J. Dry socket etiology, diagnosis, and clinical treatment techniques. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 44 (02) 52-58
• 3 Tarakji B, Saleh LA, Umair A, Azzeghaiby SN, Hanouneh S. Systemic review of dry socket: aetiology, treatment, and prevention. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9 (04) ZE10-ZE13
• 4 Cardoso RB, Soto VC, Gonçalves RC, Pedroso AM, Jabur RD, Bortoluzzi MC. Prevalence and factors associated with dry socket following routine dental extractions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2024; 29 (03) e408-e415
• 5 Suri N, Dutta A, Siddiqui N, Kaur K, Jangra D. A literature review on dry socket. IP Int J Maxillofac Imaging 2021; 6: 97-100
• 6 Akinbami BO, Godspower T. Dry socket: incidence, clinical features, and predisposing factors. Int J Dent 2014; 2014: 796102
• 7 Rosa A, Pujia AM, Arcuri C. Investigation of alveolar osteitis and the effectiveness of laser treatment: a unified Meta-analysis and review of the literature. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24 (01) 700
• 8 Rosa A, Pujia AM, Arcuri C. Hyaluronic acid combined with ozone in dental practice. Biomedicines 2024; 12 (11) 1-16
• 9 Ali AH, Karabeit Z, Nesser SA. Comparison between the efficiency of alo evera extract and alvogyl in dry socket (Alveolar osteitis) management. Int J Dent Oral Sci 2021; 8: 1415-1419
• 10 La Rosa GRM, Marcianò A, Priolo CY, Peditto M, Pedullà E, Bianchi A. Effectiveness of the platelet-rich fibrin in the control of pain associated with alveolar osteitis: a scoping review. Clin Oral Investig 2023; 27 (07) 3321-3330
• 11 Alassaf MS, Hamadallah HH, Almuzaini A. et al. Assessment of the Arabic patient-centered online information about orthodontic pain: a quality and readability assessment. PLoS One 2024; 19 (05) e0303308
• 12 Othman AA, Alassaf MS, Hasubah SM, Aljuhani M, Kabli AM, Alsulaimani M. Is Arabic online patient-centered information about dental extraction trustworthy? An infodemiological study. Digit Health 2024;10:20552076241264390
• 13 Aboalshamat K. Quality and readability of web-based information on dental caries in Arabic: an infodemiological study. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23 (01) 797
• 14 Bafail A, Mohammad RA, Shahada MO. et al. Assessment of quality and readability of online patient-centered Arabic web-based knowledge about apicoectomy. Cureus 2023; 15 (11) e48333
• 15 Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: Caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997; 277 (15) 1244-1245
• 16 Boyer C, Selby M, Appel RD. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health web sites. Stud Health Technol Inform 1998; 52 (Pt 2): 1163-1166
• 17 Shedlosky-Shoemaker R, Sturm AC, Saleem M, Kelly KM. Tools for assessing readability and quality of health-related Web sites. J Genet Couns 2009; 18 (01) 49-59
• 18 Khawaja NA, Parveen K, Almotreb A, Tashkandi R. The survey of the knowledge of dry socket and management among dental practitioners; still controversy?. J Pak Dent Assoc 2019; 28 (04) 192-196
• 19 Ezhil I, Kumar MPS. Recent advances in the management of dry socket: a review. Drug Invent Today 2018; 10: 450-455
• 20 Eshghpour M, Nejat AH. Dry socket following surgical removal of impacted third molar in an Iranian population: incidence and risk factors. Niger J Clin Pract 2013; 16 (04) 496-500
• 21 Raj K, Prabu D. Smoking as a risk factor for dry socket complication: a case control study. Ann Trop Med Public Health 2020; 23: 232-310
• 22 Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53 (02) 105-111
• 23 Almutairi BM. Dry sockets: a systemic review. Adv Life Sci 2019; 7: 48-57
• 24 Alkhuwaiter SS, Alssafi F, Alshunaiber R, Ahmed YB, Albdah B. Quality and readability assessment of web-based Arabic health information on early childhood caries. Saudi J Med Sci 2024; 12 (02) 188-193
• 25 Halboub E, Al-Ak'hali MS, Alqahtani AS. et al. Quality of web-based Arabic health information on dental implants: an infodemiological study. BMC Oral Health 2023; 23 (01) 232
• 26 Hoogland J. . Arabic from c. 1800 Cambridge World History of Lexicography. 2019. Accessed March 13, 2025 at: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:203420955
• 27 Alhamami M. Makkah is the ultimate multilingual phenomenon. Int J Islam Thought 2018; 14 (01) 60-71
• 28 Shan Y, Xing Z, Dong Z, Ji M, Wang D, Cao X. Translating and adapting the DISCERN instrument into a simplified Chinese version and validating its reliability: development and usability study. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25: e40733
• 29 Alhajj MN, Mashyakhy M, Ariffin Z, Ab-Ghani Z, Johari Y, Salim NS. Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on denture hygiene: an infodemiology study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (09) 956-960
• 30 Alkanani N, Alburaiki M, Alhabib A. et al. Prevalence of xerostomia and its associated risk factors among Saudi population: a cross-sectional survey. F1000 Res 2022; 11: 1154
• 31 Ramírez-Sepúlveda KA, Murillo-Pedrozo AM, Zuluaga-Villegas D, Vasco-Grajales K, Posada-López A, Agudelo-Suárez AA. Perceptions of patients with xerostomia about quality of life, general and oral health: a qualitative study. Glob J Health Sci 2016; 11: 57082

Publication History

Article published online:
22 April 2025